K.Primeau vs Lindros defensively: who was better?

[eagles91]

Love both players but I don't understand why KP playoff run in 2003-2004 is referred to as a "legend". After all, he had 16 pts in 18 games while Lindros had 26 pts in 19 games in 1996-97 and reached the Stanley Cup finals.
Anyway, who was better defensively and who was the most physical?

Click to read more...

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Defensively, both were lazy. I guess Primeau because he finally got it late in his career.

Physical? Lindros, easily. Before the concussions he was clearly the most physically imposing forward I've witnessed.

The difference between '04 and '97 is expectation. Lindros was expected to be the best player in the world. Keith Primeau was expected to be a lazy headcase.

 

[Brownies]

People prefers overachivers and underdogs to underachivers.

 

[Big Phil]

Not sure I trust either of them in the last minute of a game to be on the ice with a one goal lead. Lindros was physical for sure but don't mistake that for great defense either. He would often get himself out of position for the big hit and be vulnerable defensively. Lindros was way too lax on the backcheck. Primeau too.

As for their playoff runs. I never thought even at the time that Primeau's 2004 run was all that great. I remember the huge controversy over him not being on the 2004 World Cup team. I thought that was a joke. The guy had 7 goals in the regular season! Then all of the sudden 9 in the postseason considering he was almost ALWAYS a playoff choker. He just did things that he had always been capable of in 2004.

Lindros in 1997 was a beast through the first three rounds of 1997. He had Conn Smythe written all over him until Detroit smothered him. Not legendary either considering he choked at the exact wrong time

 

[Padan]

Lindros actually received 56 points in Selke voting during his career - including four first-place votes. At least some people thought he was brilliant defensively.

 

[Ola]

Lindros in his prime pwned the ice and brought the play to the other team.

But in his NY days, when he didn't have that strength -- I was suprised how clueless he was defensively. It was not that he didn't try, but...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lindros in his prime pwned the ice and brought the play to the other team.

But in his NY days, when he didn't have that strength -- I was suprised how clueless he was defensively. It was not that he didn't try, but...

Not surprising. Prime Eric Lindros relied on brute force and natural talent, but never had good hockey sense.

 

[Loto68]

Not surprising. Prime Eric Lindros relied on brute force and natural talent, but never had good hockey sense.

Clearly his hockey sense was good enough. Compare him to Alexei Kovalev. I'm not saying that Kovalev is in Lindros's category for talent, but he has all world natural talent yet was never able to put it all together like Lindros did because he has arguable the worst hockey sense ever for a player that talented.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Clearly his hockey sense was good enough. Compare him to Alexei Kovalev. I'm not saying that Kovalev is in Lindros's category for talent, but he has all world natural talent yet was never able to put it all together like Lindros did because he has arguable the worst hockey sense ever for a player that talented.

Kovalev lacked hockey sense AND effort. Nobody would ever accuse Lindros of lacking effort (if anything, he sometimes tried to do too much).

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

The thing with Lindros is, he had vision, but not the sense, so between his vision and effort, it appeared that he was a better decision maker than he was. But the truth was he could open doors for himself no one else could, and then he'd make simple plays, and that made him dominant. Once he could no longer open the doors, his simple plays weren't good enough and the truth was clear.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

As a Flyer Lindros was above average defensively. Great face-off man, and often dominated with play in the oppositions end (the best defense you can possibly play).

Primeau went from average defensive to a tremendous shutdown center once Hitchcock arrived and put him in that role. If not for a broken ribs that cost him a number of games late in the season, he was a lock for the Selke in 04.


Why was Primeau's run in 04 playoffs so good ??

A dominant shutdown and physical prensence, with the huge bonus of scoring big goals at absolute key times during that run. He was absolutely everything you'd want of a leader and captain that spring. Unfortunately, he likely overdid it, and played at least part of the playoffs while suffering from post concussion syndrome, and he never fully recovered, even after the lockout. Far and away the best performance by a Flyer in the playoffs since at least 87, and an argument can be made since 76.

 

[matnor]

Well, Phil Esposito had the following to say to Primeau

During the 04 playoffs when you and the Flyers took the Lightning to seven games, you were the most dominating player I ever saw. More than Orr, Howe, Gretzky, or anyone.

It seems like a bit of an exaggeration to say the least but still...

 

[Blades of Glory]

That single playoff run might have salvaged Keith Primeau's entire under-achieving career. In some people's minds, at least.

 

[Big Phil]

Well, Phil Esposito had the following to say to Primeau



It seems like a bit of an exaggeration to say the least but still...

My goodness! You think? Phil Esposito said that? Primeau wasn't even the best player in that SERIES! And certainly not the best in the 2004 playoffs. Richards put on a much more spectacular play that led a lot of us to believe he would continue onto being an NHL superstar (he didn't).

Primeau is a guy who gets forgiven for being a woeful playoff performer his whole career just because of one good playoff run where his team still didn't even make the finals!

 

[John Flyers Fan]

My goodness! You think? Phil Esposito said that? Primeau wasn't even the best player in that SERIES! And certainly not the best in the 2004 playoffs. Richards put on a much more spectacular play that led a lot of us to believe he would continue onto being an NHL superstar (he didn't).

Primeau was absolutely the best player in that series. Richards deserved the Conn Smythe, because his team went on to win the Cup and he had all those game winners, but he wasn't better then Primeau in the ECF.

Both finished the series with 4 goals and 4 assists, but Primeau was a +5 to Richards +1. Aside from scoring Primeau was used in a shutdown role, and was a huge physical presence.

Primeau certainly had his struggles in the playoffs in prior years, but that year he was absolutely dominant.

Phil takes it a little too far, as he always does, but Primeau will always be remembered in Philadelphia for the 2004 playoffs.

 

[Big Phil]

Primeau was absolutely the best player in that series. Richards deserved the Conn Smythe, because his team went on to win the Cup and he had all those game winners, but he wasn't better then Primeau in the ECF.

Both finished the series with 4 goals and 4 assists, but Primeau was a +5 to Richards +1. Aside from scoring Primeau was used in a shutdown role, and was a huge physical presence.

Primeau certainly had his struggles in the playoffs in prior years, but that year he was absolutely dominant.

Phil takes it a little too far, as he always does, but Primeau will always be remembered in Philadelphia for the 2004 playoffs.

The thing that shocks me is that Phil Esposito played with Orr on the ICE with him! I understand the heat of the moment but that comment seemed to discredit some great players and their performances

 

[matnor]

I agree the quote is outrageous so I tried to find the orginial source for it. The quote is from Keith Primeau's wikipedia page which in turn got it from all our favourite Eklund, not the most credible source... He in turn claims it came from an interview with Phil on XM Radio a few weeks earlier. It is of course possible that he does not accurately quote Esposito.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=5562